2 ms·

The rules of war have changed drastically in the course of history, in the sense that despised heresies become orthodoxy. Think about the pike, longbox, crossbo

by ovi256 17y ago

The rules of war have changed drastically in the course of history, in the sense that despised heresies become orthodoxy. Think about the pike, longbox, crossbox and musket - these are just a few examples that come to mind - they were despised as they allowed peasant footmen to take down aristocratic knights with impunity, and the last two, without much training. As such, they were regarded as heinous and unjust weapons that threatened the social order. Of course, pragmatism won, as it always does, and they became part of the traditional arsenal - and changed the social order. Who needs knights when they cannot win a battle ? It could be that what we today call terrorism will become part of orthodox warfare in several generation. Military theorist already call it 4th generation warfare. Basicaly, it's just a strategy, very similar to guerilla, that allows a poor unequiped militia to keep in check what we traditionally perceive as the strongest best equipped army.

DannoHung 17y ago
There is a distinction though, isn't there? All of the heresies you listed were technological innovations that changed the dynamics of warfare. The thing I find deplorable is that unmistakable innocents were used as bait to attempt to lure in an enemy that was trying to give aid. It doesn't prey upon the structural disadvantages or technological disadvantages of the superior force, it preys upon their basic empathy for people that are suffering. Terrorism in general is more about not attacking a superior force but instead attacking something else to somehow, effectively or not, hurt the superior force. I shudder to think that that sort of paradigm would become dominant. Warplanes explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most demoralizing and disruptive targets, using hunter/killer drones to gun down anyone without a FFID, it's all unconscionable when you extend it to its conclusion. I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal level.
- ovi256 17y ago
  Warplanes explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most demoralizing and disruptive targets Well, the WW2 doctrine of strategic bombing was not far off. And it justified the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of two Japanese cities, amongst others, by the airforce of an otherwise civilized country. Also, see the bombing of so-called dual-use objectives (that included schools and hospitals) in recent "peacekeeping missions" in Bosnia, Irak by the same airforce. So, nothing new there. it's all unconscionable It is because we were raised as such - social conditioning. You can not imagine how heinous the weapons I cited were considered when introduced - at first, their users refused them, as it was not honourable or just. I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal level. I do not think so, but it does not matter, unfortunately. Nobody's ethical considerations matter actually. If it works, it's going to be used, and ethical judgements are going to change as soon as the winner gets their way.

by ovi256 17y ago

DannoHung 17y ago

There is a distinction though, isn't there? All of the heresies you listed were technological innovations that changed the dynamics of warfare. The thing I find deplorable is that unmistakable innocents were used as bait to attempt to lure in an enemy that was trying to give aid. It doesn't prey upon the structural disadvantages or technological disadvantages of the superior force, it preys upon their basic empathy for people that are suffering. Terrorism in general is more about not attacking a superior force but instead attacking something else to somehow, effectively or not, hurt the superior force. I shudder to think that that sort of paradigm would become dominant. Warplanes explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most demoralizing and disruptive targets, using hunter/killer drones to gun down anyone without a FFID, it's all unconscionable when you extend it to its conclusion. I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal level.

ovi256 17y ago
Warplanes explicitly targeting schools and hospitals because they are the most demoralizing and disruptive targets Well, the WW2 doctrine of strategic bombing was not far off. And it justified the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of two Japanese cities, amongst others, by the airforce of an otherwise civilized country. Also, see the bombing of so-called dual-use objectives (that included schools and hospitals) in recent "peacekeeping missions" in Bosnia, Irak by the same airforce. So, nothing new there. it's all unconscionable It is because we were raised as such - social conditioning. You can not imagine how heinous the weapons I cited were considered when introduced - at first, their users refused them, as it was not honourable or just. I also really hope that you don't think it's perfectly fine on a personal level. I do not think so, but it does not matter, unfortunately. Nobody's ethical considerations matter actually. If it works, it's going to be used, and ethical judgements are going to change as soon as the winner gets their way.